.................................
To leave Commie, hyper to
http://commie.oy.com/commie_leaving.html
.................................
> You're right... although I haven't eperienced CSS problems with
> Mac-IE 5... But there seems to be annoying amounts of problems with
> Mac-IE DHTML (/JavaScript/ECMAScript or whatever do you call it...).
!(DHTML==JavaScript)
(nerdie joke.. =)
Usually when talking about DHTML we web people refer to DOM (document
object model), altough DHTML in fact is a mixed bag of DOM, JavaScript
and CSS.
> > And the integration of the browser to the system (in Win2k) is a nice feature,
>really.
> I've never understood, why... I think mixing up external network and
> internal hard disk is really strange...
> > Enables a lot of things you simply can't (yet) do on a Mac.
> Like what?
Well, you can have a web page as your desktop background. Great if you
want to see the stock market or the weather or whatever all the time.
You can open the browser *inside* practically any window (eg. developers
can make dialogs that involve locating a file on the net using IE,
that's not the prime example but anyway). And there are lotsa
possibilities that just haven't been used yet, but I think will.
> A funny detail. You can find similar strange things in Windows too.
> BTW, you can eject the disk by selecting "Eject" from the "Special"
> menu too, if you feel that more logical. The keyboard shortcut is
> apple+E.
OK, that should make my life a bit easier with Macs. (As you can see,
I'm no expert.)
> > - Changing between programs using Alt-Tab or clicking on the icon on
> >taskbar in Windoez is IMO easier than using the Finder to change
> >proggies in Mac.
> You can change between programs in the same way in mac.
(BTW I didn't mean Finder but Switcher)
How? I'm not getting it.
> > - Using right-click to kill or minimise tasks in Windows is a nice
> >feature.
> You can hide applications in Mac from the Finder menu (or
> option-clicking on the application switcher).
Yeah, but it's not as easy.
> >Anyway I like the Start menu more, it's a lot simpler IMO than the Mac
> >way of launching programs (I always have hard time with locating them)
> You can put your applications to Apple menu - like I do. Just drag
> aliases to its folder (in System folder). Unlike in Windows, Apple
Windows does this automatically, which is easier for the "muffin" level
user.
> menu is more flexible: you can go to the submenu folders directly
> (select "Control Panels" without selecting any control panel, and you
> go to the control panels folder.
I'm not quite sure what you're talking about, but you can customize
Start menu in Windows a great deal, too. You can put icons on any level
of the hierarchy, and it's also very simple, they're all under a folder
called "Start Menu" in the Windows directory and they work just like any
file-folder system.
> > - Windows UI (taskbar especially) is somewhat more customizable than
> >MacOS UI.
> I think it's not important... More important is to make so good
> design that you don't have to put all the possibilities in the final
> product.
I think it's good to appreciate that different users have different
needs and different backgrounds. I bet (I'm not sure tho, since I've
never really tried) that it's easier to make a Windows machine work like
a Mac (on the UI side) than a Mac work the Windows way, if you're used
to the other but have to change the platform for a reason or another.
> > As said above, this has little to do with Windows itself. It's just
> >that third party program vendors aren't as concerned with consistent UI
> >and usability as the makers of the OS.
> Yes and no. Why do Mac proggies follow the guidelines so well? I was
> trying to say that UI's in Mac proggies are a lot more "in line".
Well that is true, but I don't think that's something you can blame the
GUI for. PC is an open standard (even though Windows isn't), Mac is not.
Therefore Apple has a greater influence over the software developers.
And as I said before, I think it is an issue that many Mac developers
come from the DTP and multimedia world (visuals) unlike the PC
developers who often have engineering, science or business background.
This has to do with fact that originally Mac was the only computer that
was suitable for creative work. (Aside from writing.)
> > First, I don't think it's bad that you can do the same thing in several
> >different ways,
> It's a bad thing that the designers didn't have a clue, which way is
> the best. Seems that they didn't do any research at all (like Apple
> interface designers did). If you need additional ways for doing
> things, get some third party file manager. There are several
> available for Mac.
Later on you say:
> You are talking aout options, not the default machine you get from the store.
..so isn't that a bit paradoxical? =) Try to decide! =)
I think it's good to have options. Different people think different
way. Different tasks require different approaches. One should be able to
do the same thing the same way consistently, but shutting away other
ways of doing it isn't reasonable unless they are very confusing for the
user. (On GUI level they hardly ever are, web pages and other
"disposable" or "temporary" interfaces where the user has to grasp
everything at a glance and has no time to learn by doing are a different
matter altogether.) Even if this or that way of doing something is
statistically 12% more efficient than the another, I don't think GUI
designers should be the ones to force people to do things that way if
they don't feel comfortable about it.
> Right-click logic is not clear, when you add third party software there.
Again, I wouldn't blame Windows or Microsoft for that.
> > Their fundamental
> >logic differs a bit but I woudn't say this or that was better. It isn't
> >obvious from day one that you can drag&drop things, as it isn't that
> >right click opens a contextual menu. But when you've learned the basic
> >logic, it is consistent, both in MacOS and in Windows.
> No, it's not consistent in Windows.
Yes it is. Not so with all third-party programs, but within the OS
everything works consistenltly on the UI level. Even more so with Win2k.
> > Same is with Windows, it's just that some developers insist on building
> >their own file control system, which is idiotic. I think this is
> >possible with Mac, too.
> It's possible, but it's really rare. In Windows, it's very usual.
Not _very_ usual. With the few dozen programs I use on a somewhat
regular basis only few (WinZip and ironically MS Office) use a
non-standard file dialog. And even they comply to most Microsoft UI
specifications. (Office dialog is fully compatible on the UI level but
when you install Office 97 on Win2000 you can see that they've made
their own version of the Windows 95/98/NT file dialog that doesn't
support all the 2000 features.)
> > You can drag&drop everything in Windows, too. In Win2k especially.
> ... especially in full screen mode? Where would you drag what?
Well, as I explained in the other mail, it is possible, and anyway, who
sez you have to be in fullscreen?
> >it's better to have a deep nested menu with a
> >few choices per level than a shallow one with many choices per level.
> Nested menus are a lot slower to use.
Power users who know what they want, can use keyboard shortcuts and
shortcut icons. Inexperienced users find what they want easier if there
aren't many choices visible at the time.
> >Power users can use the keyboard shortcuts.. And the menubar is by
> >default in the same place in Windows, too.
> No, it's not in the same place, because its depends on where your
> window is. Although you'd use it in full-screen (like you usually do
> in Windows), the menu bar isn't on the edge of the screen.
OK, the later mail explained to me what you were talking about. You're
right about that, but I still prefer he Windows way, since it's much
easier to distinguish which proggy I'm in at a given moment. I think
they're both good ways, and I think one should have the option to select
which one to use.
> > Well, you don't need to right click ever if you don't want to. You can
> >buy a single button Mac mouse and use it, if you're afraid of clicking
> >the wrong button.
> You are talking aout options, not the default machine you get from the store.
So are you at times. =)
> > That works in Windows, too! What I mean with integration, is that you
> >can insert a Excel spreadsheet into a Word document that you can push to
> >PowerPoint to make a slide show and so on, with very little difficulty.
> ... and you need all these proggies in the other end too to make it work...
No you don't. You can have a free Word, Excel or PowerPoint Viewer
program, or a compatible program like WP.
Anyway, are Mac "standards" like QuickTime, PDF etc. automatically
viewable with all Macs?
> > Ha! Can you see? It's just a matter of third party vendors' policies,
> >not of the GUI itself..
> Macromedia is an exception... Adobe and Microsoft software follow
> very strictly the "Apple Human Interface" guideline.
>
> The difference between Mac and Windows is that in Mac the programmers
> really follow the guideline. In Windows, they don't. A good example
> on Mac-side is a little freeware newsreader proggy "MT-Newswatcher".
Well, is that Microsoft's fault? I don't think so.
> Talking about Apple Human Interface Guideline (which originally made
> the Microsoft proggies so easy (although they've lost the easiness
I don't see what's the point of saying who stole the idea from where.
Desktop computer was first introduced to the mass market by IBM so Apple
stole the idea from them. And so on. What's the point? If a person wants
to buy a computer today, why should he/she be interested in who was the
original innovator? He/she wants a computer and an OS that fulfill
his/her needs, that's all.
I still argue that the Windows UI guidelines are quite in the same
league than Apple's. It's just that they're being constantly ignored by
Windows developers.
--
"Betwixt decks there can hardlie a man catch his breath by
reason there ariseth such a funke in the night..."
- W. Capps, 1623
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
legal notice: http://www.nutempo.com/message_legal.html
